The restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK

Walker, Kevin J.; Stevens, P.A.; Stevens, David P.; Mountford, J. O.; Manchester, S. J.; Pywell, Richard F.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.020

Cited by 381 publications

(369 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

358

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Often, farmland itself is presented as a novel ecosystem worthy of conservation for its own sake (e.g., Stefanescu et al 2005, Jay-Robert et al 2008, best accomplished by promoting the traditional agricultural practices that created it over thousands of years (e.g., Bignal andMcCracken 1996, Pykala 2000). For example, semi-natural grasslands created by traditional agricultural practices in Europe's forest biomes are particularly important in conservation schemes (see Austrheim et al 1999, Walker et al 2004, and many papers compared biodiversity among varying management options for maintaining them (e.g., Poyry et al 2005, Saarinen andJantunen 2005).…”

Section: ''Natural Comparison'' Versus ''No Comparison'' Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes

Trimble¹,

Aarde²

2012

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Biodiversity persistence in human-modified landscapes is crucial for conservation and maintaining ecosystem services. Studies of biodiversity in landscapes where humans live, work, and extract resources could support defensible policy-making to manage land-use. Yet, research should cover relevant regions, and biases in study topics should not lead to gaps in the evidence base. We systematically reviewed the literature of biogeography in human-modified landscapes published in eight eminent biogeography, conservation, and ecology journals to assess geographical bias among biomes and geopolitical regions and taxonomic bias among species groups. We compared research output per biome to area, biome type, species richness, proportion of transformed land, and the ratio of transformed to protected land. We also compared research output per geopolitical region to area, proportion of transformed land, the ratio of transformed to protected land, and human population density. Research output was distributed unequally among biomes, geopolitical regions, and species groups. Biome type was a clear factor in research bias, and forest biomes were the subject of 87% of papers, while species richness was not generally associated with bias. Conservation in human-modified landscapes is most important in regions with low protected area coverage, high land conversion, and high pressure from human populations, yet the distribution of published papers did not generally reflect these threats. Seventy-five percent of studies focused on the Americas and Europe, while Africa and Asia were critically understudied. Taxonomically, plants and invertebrates were the most studied groups; however, research output was not correlated with species richness per group. Protected areas alone will not conserve biodiversity in the long term. Thus, a strong biogeographical evidence base is required to support policies for biodiversity maintenance on human-modified land. Under-studied regions and species groups deserve further research to elucidate what, where, and how biodiversity persists in human-modified landscapes to inform conservation policy and enhance efficacy.

show abstract

Section: ''Natural Comparison'' Versus ''No Comparison'' Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes

Trimble¹,

Aarde²

2012

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some factors of the aboveground and belowground environment have been jointly investigated (Brown and Gange 1989;Schadler et al 2004), there is a paucity of studies considering all factors at the same time and hence, the relative importance of aboveground and belowground factors for seedling survival and growth are not well understood. As restoration sites on exarable fields differ from late-successional grasslands both in terms of the aboveground and the belowground environment (Walker et al 2004), the two ecosystem compartments and their characteristics should be jointly considered when studying secondary succession in restoration programmes. A better understanding of the relative importance of aboveground and belowground factors affecting seedling survival and growth of sown late-successional plant species could improve the selection of potentially suitable sites for the creation of species-rich grassland habitat.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aboveground environment type, soil nutrient content and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi explain establishment success of Centaurea jacea on ex-arable land and in late-successional grasslands

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the relative importance of the aboveground and belowground environment for survival and growth of emerged seedlings of Centaurea jacea to better understand the general difficulty of establishing late-successional species at restoration sites on ex-arable land. Potted seedlings growing on soil from six late-successional grasslands and from six ex-arable (restoration) sites were reciprocally exchanged, and survival and relative growth rate of the seedlings monitored. In addition, we assessed aboveground herbivory and colonization of roots by arbuscular myccorhizal fungi of all plants, as well as nutrient availability, and microbial biomass and community composition using PLFA techniques in all twelve soils. Seedling survival was higher in restoration habitat and soil than in grassland habitat and soil, but growth did not differ between the aboveground and belowground environment types. Shoot growth rate was initially correlated with soil nutrient content, and later in the experiment with mycorrhizal colonization levels. Our results indicate that arbuscular mycorhizal fungi may be important for the successful establishment of C. jacea and that abiotic soil factors, like K availability and N:P ratio, can promote mycorrhizal colonization. Hence, the belowground environment should be considered when selecting sites for restoring species-rich grasslands.

show abstract

“…In practice, however, most segregation schemes allocate nature protection to marginally productive land, such as salt marshes, mountains, fens and bogs, or dry grasslands, which are relatively rare. The more widespread fertile, mesic landscapes are reserved for maximizing provisioning services, leading to strong impoverishment of their species pools (Walker et al 2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions between ecosystem properties and land use clarify spatial strategies to optimize trade-offs between agriculture and species conservation

Cebrián‐Piqueras

Trinogga

Grande

et al. 2017

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Servic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species conservation and forage production are both important, yet conflicting components of sustainable grassland management. We modeled forage production and conservation value as dependents in a chain of responses and effects, starting with abiotic environmental conditions that affect the spatial distribution of land uses and biotic ecosystem properties. We asked which relationships in this causal chain determine trade-offs between forage production and conservation value. Abiotic and biotic ecosystem properties were recorded on 46 plots in the coastal marshes of Northwest Germany. Plant and bird conservation values were calculated using Red Lists, and sales of forage-based agricultural products were assessed by interviewing farmers. We used a structural equation model to determine responses and effects. Groundwater depth and salinity represent the ultimate causes for the spatial variation in sales and conservation value. The water gradient translated into more proximate causes, such as land-use intensity affecting aboveground net primary productivity, forage quality, and species richness. Plant species conservation and forage production were segregated along the water gradient, and both bird conservation and forage production depended on grassland management, albeit at different fertilization levels. Our study points to segregation and integration as two spatial strategies to react to trade-offs between services.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

The restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK

Cited by 381 publications

References 73 publications

Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes

Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes

Aboveground environment type, soil nutrient content and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi explain establishment success of Centaurea jacea on ex-arable land and in late-successional grasslands

Interactions between ecosystem properties and land use clarify spatial strategies to optimize trade-offs between agriculture and species conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About